Google, YouTube to prohibit ads and monetization on climate denial content
https://www.axios.com/google-youtube-climate-change-734f2b05-40e2-4e05-9100-39de589b3b0a.html
"Google and YouTube on Thursday announced a new policy that prohibits climate deniers from being able to monetize their content on its platforms via ads or creator payments.
Why it matters: It's one of the most aggressive measures any major tech platform has taken to combat climate change misinformation.
Details: Google advertisers and publishers, as well as YouTube creators, will be prohibited from making ad revenue off content that contradicts "well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change," the company's ads team said in a statement.
- "This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change."
- Ads and monetization will still be allowed to run alongside other climate-related topics, like public debates on climate policy, impacts of climate change, and new research around the issue.
Google said it's making these changes in response to frustration from advertisers and content creators about their messages appearing alongside climate denialism.
- "Advertisers simply don’t want their ads to appear next to this content. And publishers and creators don’t want ads promoting these claims to appear on their pages or videos," the company said.
Yes, but: Google often makes changes to its ads policies to reduce misinformation, but this update is notable, given how hard it can be to characterize certain commentary about climate change as denialism or misinformation.
- The tech giant says that when evaluating content against the new policy, "we’ll look carefully at the context in which claims are made, differentiating between content that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim."
- The company says it has consulted with experts, like representatives of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports, to create the policy. The report found that there is "unequivocal" evidence showing that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global warming."
- Google says it will use a combination of automated tools and human review to enforce the new policy.
The big picture: Internet companies have been under increased pressure from climate activists to do more to address climate change denial on their platforms."
metmike: This is very interesting and I actually think that if we don't have blatant abuses of the policy, that it's a really good thing. There really is a serious problem with true climate deniers that claim there is NO global warming or that humans play NO role that totally mess it up for atmospheric scientists like metmike that show the realities.........of what the REAL warming are in the REAL world from the beneficial CO2.
People lump true deniers and climate realism from scientists like metmike in the same category because they don't understand climate science.
You basically have one side that believes EVERYTHING from their side because its coming from that side...............without applying science or critical thinking.
And the other side believes the exact opposite......and EVERYTHING from their side because it coming from that side.........without applying science or critical thinking.
I've spent the last 25 years scrutinizing all my work and opinions using the scientific method and basing everything on empirical data and authentic science.
Criticism and disagreements of my work/opinions are always my favorites. I can either show the proof or, if not able to do that..........learn something new.
However, if somebody came here and in several months, made 200 posts that disagreed with me and used junk science from really bad or cherry picked sources or anomalies and completely ignored my proof every time but had the sole objective of just trying to convince people here who thought like them to believe their junk science.........then I would try to get them to stop doing that with numerous warnings, along with showing them the authentic science each time ...........in hopes that they would open their minds to the truth and not try to pollute the forum with constant lies.
Everybody has the right to the wrong opinion and they can voice that repeatedly here......... but after 200 times of obsessively and neurotically posting the WRONG opinion in the face of many dozens of patient corrections with the truth/facts.....that it becomes clear that this person is here with a mission that is completely the opposite of why MarketForum exists and is sabotaging those efforts.
Everybody has the right to the truth and MarketForums top priority is to deliver the fact/science based truth. Not everybody will except that..........which is fine but people that intentionally sabotage our effort to deliver the truth with hundreds of posts over a period of many months...........will be given countless opportunities to stop doing it if they are contributors in other realms.
A clear thinking person that is on board with our mission here would quickly appreciate this.
A mind captured by propaganda and false narratives/rhetoric that is manufactured for political reason, sadly is unable to think or post the truth clearly and resulted in Gunter repeatedly violating and disrespecting my pleading for him to open his mind and stop trying to pollute other minds here.
Back to the original topic.
There are people just like Gunter in climate science that refuse to believe the planet is warming and refuse to acknowledge that humans are having an affect and refuse to acknowledge the 100% proven physics of greenhouse gas warming caused by CO2.
When these people neurotically post their constant anti science bs they actually do the most harm to people on that side, who KNOW they are wrong but want people to know the truth about how the many exaggerations used to create a fake climate crisis that ignores the massive benefits.
How do we filter information so that it represents authentic science?
We shall see.
It's likely to cause some problems because of several items accepted as mainstream climate science based on bad science from the IPCC and UN........that ever body accepts.
We will see.
I am for authentic science, truth, empirical data and evidence to get the most weighting..........yes, even greater weighting than people's right to tell and spread lies. ........because the right to tell lies is stealing the intelligence of tens of millions of Americans right now in several realms.
We have to do something to stop this.
I would be interested in hearing why people think that spreading clear lies for political agenda is a good thing.
No, not a difference in opinion, where both sides have an equally legit case to be right.
When one side has all the authentic data/science on their side and the other side has manufactured a convincing sounding lie.
Why would this be acceptable?
It doesn't matter if YOU believe in the lie. That doesn't mean its acceptable.
Yeah, I know that the concern is that the entities determining what is a lie and what is not a lie will be biased. That is probably true but to be quite honest, almost everything they've decided is a lie, at this point...........was in fact a lie.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++